Judge Finds Starbucks Guilty of Extensive Union-Busting

[Magda Hassan]

Judge Finds Starbucks Guilty of Extensive Union-Busting

The IWW Scores Big Victory Over Global Coffee Chain

New York, NY (Dec. 23, 2008)- Following a lengthy trial here last
year, a National Labor Relations Board judge has found Starbucks
guilty of extensive violations of federal labor law in its bid to
counter the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. In an 88-page decision,
Judge Mindy E. Landow found, among other things, that Starbucks
maintained multiple policies which interfered with workers' right to
communicate about the union and about working conditions; terminated
three workers in retaliation for union activity; and repeatedly
discriminated against union supporters. The decision comes despite a
2006 New York settlement in which Starbucks pledged to stop illegal
anti-union activities and mirrors federal government action against
the company for its conduct toward baristas in Minnesota and Michigan.

"The judge's decision coupled with previous government findings
expose Starbucks for what it is --- a union-busting corporation that
will go to staggering lengths to interfere with the right to freedom
of association," said Daniel Gross, a barista and member of the IWW
Starbucks Workers Union found to have been unlawfully terminated by
the coffee giant. "In these trying economic times of mass layoffs
and slashed work hours, it's more important than ever that Starbucks
and every corporation is confronted with a social movement that
insists on the right to an independent voice on the job."

The Board decision is the latest blow against a company that has
experienced a stunning fall from grace. From a precipitous decrease
in customer demand to its increasingly tattered socially responsible
image, the myriad of challenges facing Starbucks has resulted in the
company losing over half its value from just a year ago. The
decision also represents a significant victory for the IWW Starbucks
Workers Union which continues to grow across the country with
baristas taking creative and determined actions to improve the
security of works hours and win respect on the job. Starbucks faces
another Labor Board trial next month in Grand Rapids, Michigan over
illegal union-busting.

"For the first time, a judge has confirmed the existence of a
nationally coordinated anti-union operation at Starbucks," said
Stuart Lichten, the attorney for the IWW Starbucks Workers Union in
the case. "This decision conclusively establishes Starbucks'
animosity toward labor organizing."

The union is confident that Judge Landow's copiously documented and
well-reasoned 88-page decision will be upheld by the National Labor
Relations Board in Washington, D.C. should Starbucks appeal. The
victory is sure to be gratifying for the union's international
supporters who conducted spirited global days of action in defense of
Isis Saenz, Joe Agins, Jr., and Daniel Gross after their terminations
which the Board has now found to be unlawful.

The National Labor Relations Board attorneys on the case were Burt
Pearlstone and Audrey Eveillard. The union's attorney Stuart Lichten
is a partner at Schwartz, Licthen & Bright, a prominent New York City
labor law firm. Starbucks was represented by union-avoidance lawyers
Daniel Nash, Stacey Eisenstein, and Nicole Morgan at corporate firm
Akin Gump.

The IWW Starbucks Workers Union (StarbucksUnion.org) is an
organization of almost 300 current and former Starbucks employees
united for a living wage, secure work hours, and respect on the job.
Founded in 2004, the union uses direct action, litigation, and
advocacy to both make systemic improvements at Starbucks and take on
the company over unfair treatment of individual baristas.

The Industrial Workers of the World (iww.org) is a rank and file
labor union dedicated to democracy in the workplace and global
solidarity.

[Myra Bronstein]

Holy Moly! This is huge; I had no idea. I was under the mistaken impression that Starbucks was halfway decent to their staff since they give benefits to part time workers. Well screw Starbucks. Not that I went there very often anyway, but now I officially boycott.

[Myra Bronstein]

Watch the video (eye-opening!) and sign the memo if you agree with it.
http://stopstarbucks.com/

Sign the Memo to Howard Schultz
Schultz has said if workers "had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.” Help us reach 50,000 signatures, and let's send a clear message to Schultz that corporations should support unionization and the Employee Free Choice Act.


Dear Mr. Schultz (Starbucks CEO), You have repeatedly intimidated and terminated your employees for seeking to unionize, taking a page from Wal-Mart's unethical playbook. That does not foster trust among workers. We insist you allow your workers to organize and stop opposing the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of allowing your workers to unionize and negotiate fairer wages, health benefits, and hours, Starbucks spends millions in legal fees settling labor complaints that would expose your atrocious labor practices. That does not foster trust among workers. Rather than heed workers' pleas, Starbucks has proposed a stripped down version of the Employee Free Choice Act that would make unionization more difficult. That does not foster trust among workers. Quit following Wal-Mart's anti-union example and give your workers what they want, Mr. Schultz. They will not trust you until you do.

[Myra Bronstein]

From Daily Kos. Reprinted here. So glad I boycott those assholes.

http://tinyurl.com/m44wdc

How Starbucks Sticks It To Their Workers, A Personal Story: Updated!

by Something the Dog Said

Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:08:41 PM PDT

The Dog has been thinking about writing this for a while, but has held off since there were legal issues in play. Now that everything is resolved, the Dog would like to give a rather personal example of how badly Starbucks treats its employees. One caveat, you will forgive the old hound a little if this seems biased as it does involved his wife, Mrs. Dog.
"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"

Before we get started the Dog needs to give you a little background about the laws in Colorado. The Centennial State is what is called a "At will" state. This is a euphemism which pretends that workers and employers are somehow equal in that either can terminate a working relationship for any reason. It all plays in the very anti-union stance the State is in right now (Thanks Coors family!). This means your employer can come in and decide he does not like the look of your face and fire you for it. It also means you are pretty much guaranteed to get your unemployment if you are fired, even if it is treated as "for cause". This is marginally fair, since you don’t have any security from being fired; you should at the very least be able to collect unemployment when you are.

Now we need to get to the Starbucks part of the story. In late April the Dog’s partner was working as a Shift Leader at the Starbucks in Lowery Development in Denver (for those out of State, Lowery is an old Air Force Base which has been redeveloped). She had been working for Starbucks for two years and at this particular store for four months. On this day her manager wrote her up for failing to finish the side work before he got into the store. It was his policy that the work which Starbucks wanted done by 9am had to be done by 6:45am when he arrived. Not exactly fair, but what working environment ever is?

During this write up he mentioned it would be a final warning and next time she would be fired, based on the 11 previous write ups from her last store. The Dog’s partner objected to this, as the manager who had given her these write ups had been so out of control Starbucks had demoted her two levels down to Shift Leader for exactly this behavior to Mrs. Dog and others at that store. Mrs. Dog had gone as far as to write a letter of complaint against the manager and have a meeting with the regional manager about the situation. She explained all of this to her manager. He offered to let her resign her Shift Leader position in return for not writing her up. Mrs. Dog turned this down and asked for a meeting with the District Manager, since she takes all threats to her job very seriously.

The manager was not very keen on this and said, "here is his number if you want to set up a meeting." Mrs. Dog of course followed through and had a meeting with the District Manager. After explaining the situation the District Manager assured her she would not be fired over "anything trivial". The next week Mrs. Dog was brought into the Mangers office and fired for failing to fill out the daily work assignments. It was not that she had failed to assign the work; it was not that the work was undone, it was that she had failed to put her initials on all the little slots saying it was done. This paperwork was commonly left unfilled out at this store, even by the manager who fired her.

Well, what are you going to do? Colorado is a right to work state, so they were totally inside the boundaries to fire her if they wanted to. It pissed Mrs. Dog off a lot as it was clear that they were in the process of firing her when she talked to the District Manager as they had a check for all her time the day she was fired. The offense the Manager had written her up for had happened the day before she was able to talk to the District Manager and he had lied to her face. Still, there is no point crying over spilt milk. Mrs. Dog filed for unemployment and started looking for work.

It takes about six weeks to start receiving benefits in Colorado. At four weeks a letter came from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, saying Starbucks had filed to deny her benefits and from the paperwork they were granting it. Needless to say Mrs. Dog was gobsmacked, not only had Starbucks fired her for a piddling offense under less than honest circumstances, they were trying to screw her out of her unemployment.

Mrs. Dog immediately appealed, and the hearing was set for June 15th, six more weeks away. During that time we would receive no unemployment benefits. If she prevailed at the hearing, she would get the back benefits she had been denied.

The day of the hearing came. We both went down to the location where the hearing would take place. Starbucks had hired a lawyer from Louisiana to represent them and he and the manger appeared by phone. The hearing officer swore everyone except the Dog in and then started asking questions. She asked the manager why he fired Mrs. Dog. The manager overplayed his hand making claims about other things left undone by Mrs. Dog and how it left the store in chaos that morning.

The hearing officer asked Mrs. Dog what went on that morning. She explained that the safe had been broken this required she count the money in a different way than the usual. This lead to her dropping about twenty dollars in nickels all over the floor, they had to be cleaned up prior to opening and this put her way behind in the work she needed to get done. She had assigned all the openers their work and it was all being done when the manager had arrived. She had not filled out the paperwork feeling it was secondary to getting the store ready to open.

Mrs. Dog was able to ask the manager some questions. The most important one was if he had ever written others up for failing to fill out the paperwork. He was a real jerk about the wording of the question and the hearing officer had to make him answer, which did with a petulant "of course". The Dog does not think this endeared him to the Hearing Officer very much.

The Starbucks lawyer questioned the manager about how long it took to fill out the paper work. He said it took five to ten minutes. The lawyer then asked Mrs. Dog if she couldn’t find that amount of time in the thirty minutes she had to open the store. This is where he made a mistake; he asked a question he did not know the answer too. Mrs. Dog explained that since the safe was broken she did not have time. He then asked about the previous write up for the same thing, didn’t she have time that day? Mrs. Dog explained that Starbucks had cut down the opening time from 45 minutes to 30 minutes to save labor, but they had not adjusted the amount of work to be done in that time. It meant if anything went wrong, something would be left undone. This was compounded by the manger insisting it be done a full 2 hours and 15 minutes prior to the Starbucks standard. After that the lawyer had no more questions.

Two weeks later Mrs. Dog received a letter explaining the hearing officer had found she was discharged for events physically beyond her control. The officer said she was very credible (and pointedly not saying the same about the manager) and the as finding of fact the officer found the broken safe and the nickels made it impossible for her to meet the standard she was dismissed for failing. She was granted her full unemployment.
At this point we figured it was over. It was clear the manager had thought he could be a real jerk by denying her unemployment benefits and Starbucks had paid for an attorney as well as having her unemployment deducted from their fund. We were wrong.

On the last day of the appeals period, Starbucks filed for an appeal of the ruling to the Industrial Appeals Board. The LA lawyer was disputing the finding of fact by the hearing officer. His brief was exactly two sentences long, calling the finding of fact laughable.

The notice of appeal came with an invitation to write a brief in support of our side of things. The Dog grew up in a family full of lawyers; he knows how to dispute legal claims, especially ones as weak as this one. It took about an hour to put together a brief detailing the credible testimony the hearing officer had cited and destroying the two sentence brief.

Yesterday the Industrial Appeals Board sent out a letter affirming the hearing officers finding. They even used the exact same language the Dog used in his brief to for this affirmation. The Board then took three paragraphs putting the lawyer in his place for even suggesting an appeals board had the power to overturn a finding of fact. It was beautiful!

So, Mrs. Dog got her unemployment, but the Dog wants point out that most folks faced with this level of resistance might not. Starbucks has this image as selling a premium product and treating their workers well. This is all PR on their part. They do not care about their employees. The only reason Starbucks offers insurance (expensive insurance that does not cover very much) is their founders father was a blue collar guy who lost his home because he did not have insurance and his wife got sick. Starbucks has aggressively resisted unionization at all times. They have close stores which organized and it is their policy to this day to do so.

Beyond that look at the lengths they went to with Mrs. Dog. They let an unqualified manager vindictively write her up 11 times in six month. Instead of firing this manager they merely demoted her. They then used these write ups as a pretext to threaten her job. They lied about firing her. Then they made her wait a total of twelve weeks to get her unemployment. For most people this would be an economic disaster. They hired a lawyer to try to make sure the appeal would be denied. When they lost, they kept him on and appealed to the higher court. All of this to stick it to someone who had worked for them for two years.

This is where we are in labor relations in this nation. A 2.5 billion dollar a year revenue company which returns very good returns for its investors and dominates its market is willing to put the screws to any employee who steps out of line or wants to unionize.

There is only one protection for workers, collective bargaining. We must pass EFCA in order to hold companies like Starbucks accountable. The people who work there are not just college age kids who need a little extra cash, most of the employees are full time, who have families and children they are trying to support. EFCA would allow them to organize at the store level in such a way Starbucks would not be able to close all the stores which did unionize. This is true for many other companies as well.

In the short term, you might want to think about what the money for your double mocha with an extra shot is supporting. It is supporting a company which does not care about its employees and whose cooperate lobbying is one of the major players against EFCA. There are plenty of Mom and Pop coffee shops who would love to have your dollars and you could be making a stand for workers everywhere by just saying no to Starbucks.

The floor is yours.

UPDATE:
Commentor Sanley Black has provided a link for the IWW's efforts to unionize Starbucks. You can follow it here [http://www.starbucksunion.org/ MB], if you'd like to support their efforts.

[Damien Lloyd]

Boycott Starbucks??? How can you propose such a thing? If people didn't spend their time buying coffee for £2 a cup, and £3 cookies they would have too much money. And we all know that plebs with money use it to buy drugs thus creating a crime wave. (I actually met someone recently who really did think along those lines).

Ok, so Starbucks joins the growing ranks of companies that will no longer see my money, but do me a favour if you find out anything bad about the business practices of the Illy coffee company DO NOT TELL ME (ignorance really is bliss, it's one of the few pleasures I have left).

[Myra Bronstein]

...
Ok, so Starbucks joins the growing ranks of companies that will no longer see my money, but do me a favour if you find out anything bad about the business practices of the Illy coffee company DO NOT TELL ME (ignorance really is bliss, it's one of the few pleasures I have left).

Illy coffee company!? You mean the CIA front company?!?!



Kidding! Enjoy your java. :coffee:

I share your passion for coffee. It truly is one of the great pleasures of life.

And thanks for joining the Starbucks boycott Damien.