Under Mounting Pressure, Starbucks Settles Yet Another Labor Dispute

by: ZP Heller

Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 16:45


Here comes my coffee spit take for the day.  Starbucks just settled its sixth labor dispute in the past three years!  According to the settlement, Starbucks must now allow Minneapolis-area workers to discuss unions and post union materials in break areas, and the company can no longer kick union sympathizers out of its stores.

This is a huge win for the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, an organization of over 300 current and former Starbucks employees -- the David to Starbucks' caffeinated, union-busting Goliath.  Though really, it's a big win for all Starbucks employees, since unionization would enable workers to negotiate set hours, fairer wages and better benefits for everyone.

Angel Gardner, a Twin Cities barista and member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, said, "This settlement proves that Starbucks executives are not above the law and cannot block hard working baristas from making positive change.  How can Starbucks claim that it maintains a positive work environment when one labor case after another exposes its lack of respect for employees?"

ZP Heller :: Under Mounting Pressure, Starbucks Settles Yet Another Labor Dispute

As I've written previously, it's deceptive for Starbucks to pretend to offer workers adequate wages and benefits.  The reality is Starbucks routinely prevents employees from working enough hours to qualify for the company's health insurance, and the average barista earns $7.75 an hour.  Then, when workers attempt to remedy this problem by forming a union, Starbucks violates labor laws by firing or intimidating them, going so far as to actively oppose the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Minneapolis settlement is also a win for the Stop Starbucks campaign, which the Seattle Times and other recent press coverage have credited with pressuring Starbucks into supporting workers' rights.  Join 15,000 who have signed the petition insisting Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz allow workers to unionize.  Then, enter the Stop Starbucks contest and get creative as you raise awareness about Starbucks' anti-labor practices.


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good news. (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the support.  If progressives boycotted Starbucks to help unionization, who would buy their overpriced coffee?  Hmm.

The economy is already taking care of that (4.00 / 3)
From the cost-cutting measures at my local Starbucks, which is in a fairly affluent and very progressive area, I can tell that they're having revenue problems. Although, I think that progressives tend to frequent locally-owned coffee places anyway, and go to Starbucks only out of convenience or a lack of local options. But if their current business model depends mostly on the continued sale of overpriced drinks, then they're in trouble, boycott or no.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Imho pressure on the lawmakers would be better than a boycott. (4.00 / 2)
A boycott, in these hard times, would only put more pressure on Starbucks to reduce its costs, and set more employees free. And it would only be focussed on Starbucks, even though this is a general problem in the US today.

So, it would be much better to apply pressure on the government to put more emphasis, and manpower, on supervising labor laws. And the penalties for the offenders have to become more brusiing, so that it doesn't make economic sense anymore to engage in illegal behavior. That's where the lawmakers come in, who have to adjust the fines to a level that would really hurt offenders. As it is now, the rules of the game are stacked against the workers and the unions. Just imagine what would happen in, say, icehockey if the only penalty for conducting a foul would be a one dollar penalty against the offending team! This has to change.


[ Parent ]
I went to my local Starbucks yesterday (4.00 / 1)
late in the day, and found out that they were closing early because the employees were all going out on a bowling party. I wonder if this is what Schultz thinks of as "employee benefits". I'm always shocked when I see an employee have to get in line and purchase a coffee or food item like everyone else. I can see how they'd have to pay for food, hopefully at a discount, but coffee? How cheap is that? At the same time, they're cutting costs, in stupid ways, like no longer serving decaf after noon (which, um, is kind of when you'd want to go for decaf, hello?), only putting half and half out, and closing earlier. Is this company reaping what it sowed?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Settle, shmettle,... (0.00 / 0)
..this hasn't been remotely expensive enough for Starbucks to lead to a real change in behaviour. Only if federal regulators weigh in with heavy fines will it become too costly for those serial offenders to violate the laws safeguarding the workers. As long as illegal policies result in saving the company more bucks than it loses in settlements, this will go on.

So, this is a battle won, but to win the war, it's essential that the feds add their full firepower. To unleash this force, stricter laws with much harsher penalties are necessary. It's time for the unions to build their own "coalition of the willing" among the lawmakers...


One additional point on the penalties (0.00 / 0)
Imho the main problem with financial fines is that they are not adjusted to inflation. So, I think it would be a good idea to reform labor laws in a way that violations will result not in a fixed administrative fine, but in a relative one, for instance 20% of the total payroll value per year. Repeated violations should add up to 100% or even more. This would be an amount that companies can't ignore, and would result in them becoming much more careful in their treatment of their workforce.

[ Parent ]





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search