Pro-union Starbucks barista from Minnesota gets his job back

Erik Forman, who said he was fired from Starbucks for helping to organize fellow workers into a union, has been given his job back. In a preliminary reinstatement agreement dated Aug. 14, Starbucks said its firing of Forman was "ill-considered and should be reversed." Starbucks confirms that Forman is being given his job back but insists his firing and reinstatement had nothing to do with his support for the union. || Read the Associated Press story

Comments

[josh]

just show up a half-hour late for work...everyone else does it...so i should just get a warning...no big deal...i can be the partner with poor attendance and still have a job.
what a sense of entitlement this poor kid has...

maybe if he spent LESS time trying to unionize his fellow peons and more time trying to get to work on time he never would have been fired. i guess that means none of us have to be on time now since write-up's aren't enforced 100% of the time and sbux will give you your job back regardless of your attendance.

of all the complaints i hear about starbucks...hiring this person back is near the top of my list.

[sneaky]

The of this situation is the DM and SM made a real bad choice. According to the records at the store there had been many many instances of partners being late, some in excess of 30 minutes, and no warnings had been issued (the DM had to go back through over 6 months of clockings and partner files - yikes). This kid had his last corrective action over a year earlier and on his last 2 reviews was rated ME for attendance. Then the union stuff comes up. Rumor has it the RD told the DM who told the SM to fire him for whatever could be found. The guy shows up 30 mihnutes late, gets a Final and is then promptly seperated. The sad reality is this SM and DM violated the law by not applying fair and equitable performance/disciplinary standards anad the company suffers AND get a ton of bad press. A much too common mistake in every company. Sigh. Wonder how long the DM and SM will last . . !

[Nerfebarista]

Josh, I wish it were easy to shit-can all people that show up late for shifts. I would personally have all tardy people either reformed or executed. If you have an appointment, work, class or even just a date, where the time to meet/show up is set, you need to be there on time, or you need to have the flesh whipped off of your back.! =D

I agree this guy probably only got his job back because of the union stuff, but if you have a dirty attendance record, you really don't deserve much respect, atleast in this industry.

I left a job I loved, partners and customers I cared for, and a healthy living because I wanted this DM out of my life.

I'm not surprised this situation was mishandled.

I worked a shift w/ Erik and he was great (legendary, if you will). I think he even created a Yahoo group for partners to use when they needed a shift covered.

[Nerfebarista]

all of that sounds like a great partner for sure, but if you are going to do something that you know the company you work for won/t like, don't give them a reason to fire you. i'm not saying its right, but its true

If Starbucks fired every partner who was ever late for work, there would be nobody left.

[cornfrost]

Hey Lauren Shepherd, if you are reading this:
There's a computer-era glitch in your story. The google map that accompanies it locates the story in NY, where the dateline is. In fact, the map should indicate Minnesota, where the story happened.
The map clearly picks up the dateline location, but this is very misleading to the reader.

Good thing we don't have an at-will employment policy that dictates we can end employment at any time, for little to no reason at all....

oh wait, we ARE at-will. Oops- seems to be that we should have fought this one. The point being is that had he not shown up late, he would not have been let go (it would have been one thing for us to let him go with no reason, but he provided that to us!). His actions, our reprecussions. I don't agree with a one-size-fits-all performance management policy, and the law does not require it (more often, an 80/20 rule applies, as long as you're mostly consistent there is opportunity for situational application) so this is ludicrous. We've bowed down yet again. UGH.

[sneaky]

Well regardless if the company is an at-will employer, in an at-will state or protected by any number of other employment policies of the company, state or country - we are really talking about case law precident. Once an employee wins a suit that becomes the new standard that every lawyer will use even if it is in conficlt with the law/policy. That is clearly the case here and every Sbux lawyer knew it. Hence the return of his job. The other problem is the appearance of retaliation - very easy to prove by a disgruntled employee. Looking at this situation, it clearly was retaliation. I don't agree a poor performer should stay, but get rid of them the right way and not for any other reason but the actual performance of their job. In reality - you want more pay? You want consistent hours? You want consistency in how managers treat you? Then adopting a union is actually the right way to go. I have managed people in union and non-union environments. It's HELL in a union environment but it sure does protect the employee from those aweful managers that are out there in mass numbers.

"(more often, an 80/20 rule applies, as long as you're mostly consistent there is opportunity for situational application) so this is ludicrous. We've bowed down yet again. UGH." - anon

It looks like Erik was a ME partner for his last two reviews and tardiness was not an issue. His last corrective action was over a year old. I'd say he was "mostly consistent" in his performance.

[ashdad]

there is a bigger issue here; it is in our policies and procedures to create a positive work enevironment and treat each other with respect and dignity. So first, if the store was a positive place to work this guy wouldn't need to start a union. second, if the store partners respected each other, except for very few legitimate tardies that occur, they shouldn't be late anyway. and this type of crap wouldn't happen. I have been a sm for over 10 years and never has anything like this ever happened in any of the stores I have managed. If you put up with crap and have no backbone to enforce policies then, well we see what happens.

[UnionsProtectTheLazy]

Unions are not needed at Starbucks! If the Managers are THAT bad, then inform the appropriate parties instead of generalizing...it works both ways.

I have also managed 'union' as well as 'non-union' and the union protects the one who 'doesnt' do his job...unions are a waste of money. They complicate things to necessitate themselves...

[tcsbuxunion]

Ahem. To put the record straight- Erik wasn't fired for being late. He was put on final written warning for being a half hour late, after he had received two written warnings for being late over a year prior. Normally these would have been removed from his record, but because he was under the gun for discussing the union, he was given his final written warning and banned from covering shifts at other stores.

Several weeks after being put on final written warning, he was fired for discussing the final written warning with peers.

Turns out, it's illegal to fire workers for discussing discipline, let alone for discussing unionization.

[Anon unionist]

Just backing up what tcsbuxunion said. He was not in fact fired for being late. He was fired for discussing the write up. What reasonable person would take the confidentiality clause on corrective actions to mean that you cannot discuss an action that you were on the receiving end of. This is in fact illegal. It gives the worker no recourse to have unfair actions corrected. Besides that, it's just absurd. The confidentiality agreement is meant to keep people from discussing how another worker has been disciplined, to respect their privacy. Erik obviously was not concerned about others knowing about it.

[Anon unionist]

Also, I'd like to point out that while Starbucks obviously didn't admit any legal wrongdoing, as the AP release says, by reinstating Erik, they are saying through their actions that what he did was not reason to be fired. It shouldn't have been an infraction. They're obviously not saying that they fired him out of retaliation, which is illegal, but they are saying he should not have been fired. And the fact of the case is he was fired for discussing discipline. That is illegal. Anyone looking at the case can see that Starbucks broke the law. It's obvious. The only reason the parties agreed to settle is because Starbucks knows they broke the law, and want to get off easy. If firing Erik for discussing discipline was legal, then they would be in a winning position. They have the money and the lawyers. They would win easily if they had a case. They don't, so they've settled. Shame on Starbucks for breaking the law and their mission.

[spence]

Thank Goodness no one else is talking about a union. I'd quit in a second if I thought it was going to happen.

[josh]

why would this guy even want to work for starbucks again? he is a just a person who has been fed a whole lot of pro-union propaganda and has bought it hook, line and sinker. i make no judgment on his character...i'm sure he is a nice person...but someone fed him this union garbage and he bought it. and now he wants to unionize starbucks. i think there are a whole lot of us who don't want that and have quite a different take on unionization.

[Mike]

There was an article in Canada's Financial Post:

http://www.financialpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=756585

The decline of union power
But unionized Canadians’ attitudes remain positive toward unionization

Nicolas Van Praet, Financial Post
Published: Friday, August 29, 2008

"There are a lot of people that are starting to de-unionize too, but you don't hear too much about it," he said. "The unions don't advertise it. And a lot of other companies are scared to advertise that they're de-unionizing because it is a unionized town. They're afraid that if they advertise that, they might lose business."

Workers at seven Starbucks outlets in Vancouver voted last year to decertify from the Canadian Auto Workers union, leaving the global coffee goliath with just one unionized company-owned store nationwide.

Josh, you said that Erik has been fed the pro-union propaganda and has "bought it hook, line and sinker."

Are you sure you haven't been fed the anti-union propaganda and bought it hook, line, and sinker?

[Anon unionist]

Some of us (about 50 Starbucks Union members, other IWW members, members of other unions, and other union activists and supporters) were just on our way with Eric to his first day back at work. When we arrived, we were warmly welcomed by the riot squad of the city of Bloomington police. They had their helmets, batons, and everything. The Mall of America heard we were coming, and decided that they would not allow us in. In fact, they let nobody at all who was on our train into the mall. We had no signs or literature to hand out, and we were going to simply go patronize the Starbucks at the mall. It was a (rather large) organized outing, not an organized protest. I'm sure the Mall will be having many small and large groups of Republican Delegates visiting in coming days. I wonder if they are having every single one of those people detained just for being members of a political organization.

What person in their right mind shows up late for work and thinks it's ok! This story is ridiculous. So is this barista looking for attention? Then look for a different job in say, i don't know media or something. Is he looking for more money? Then get another job! It's just coffee! He obviously does not have a very good working relationship with all the staff at his store. And if he does then why all this filing complaints and trying to unionize parnters in his area. This person needs some time to really think about what his calling is. Coffee is definatly not it!

[Anon unionist]

For the last time. Can we get the facts straight? I'm talking to you, 8:02 AM poster. He never said showing up for work late was okay. He wasn't fired for showing up late for work.

Everyone, PLEASE READ: Erik was not fired for being late to work.

Erik was not fired for being late to work.

Did you miss that? Let me repeat it again. Erik was not fired for being late to work.

He was fired for discussing discipline. That is a pretty clear example of action in concert, which is legally protected.

Did everyone get that? Erik was not fired for being late.

If you missed that before, Erik was not fired for being late.

Further, why is he trying to unionize partners? Because he is pro-union and anti-corporation. Nothing more. He believes that something is wrong when people aren't paid a living wage. He doesn't trust corporations to pay a cent more than they absolutely have to, even if it means that their workers don't make enough to live above poverty.

[Pat Nerr]

I can't believe he got fired for showing up late...

[BIGDAVE]

Why is it that a company with so called respect for each other looses every one of these things that go to court. Why does a company that preaches all this respect for their fellow man constantly appear in the media having to back peddle and rehire these people? Could it be that their little green books and core value statements are all a load of lies and childish stupidity that is used to brow beat working people? I don't think any of this hype applies to the management of the company. I certainly didn't see much respect shown when I worked for this bunch. Congratulations Erik....it will just be a matter of time before they dredge up another load of crap and sling it at you. Watch your back ole man......

[Anti-Union Activist!!!]

@ tcsbuxunion

First of all ( if it was his final written warning then it was his final, btw those DO NOT EXPIRE -come with facts before you attack.

@Anon unionist

If he is anti-corporation then why did he get a job at a major corporation? There are always options and don't tell there aren't. Also, you can actually live on starbucks pay, you may be scheduled only 20 hours but you can get 40 if you go and cover shifts as often as possible. I understand having a union for maybe some jobs (that are dangerous for example: Police) is important and comes in handy but for part time coffee slingers, please come off you soap box! Deal with the times and understand that we live in CORPORATE America, you are not going to be able change that no matter how hard you and the rest of the "Pro-unionists" try.

[Anon-unionist]

Anti-union, I don't know for sure why he decided to work for starbucks, but maybe it's because health care is currently controlled by the corporations, and they naturally favor other big corporations when deciding how much people should pay to live a healthy life. It's hard to find a job with a small independent employer that includes health benefits. And sure, you can live on Starbucks pay if you've been there for a few years, and are making something resembling a living wage. But if you've just started, and are making around $7.50 an hour here in the twin cities, you basically have to have a second job. Even 40 hours doesn't cut it. Especially after your insurance deduction, and a few measly percent for SIP or 401k that they talk up so much, because not only do you want to survive RIGHT NOW, but also when you're 70 or 80 and too old to work like you're 20. What good do those benefits do if by saving for retirement, you're adding to your troubles now?

And no, it is basically not possible to work 40 hours at starbucks. If you come close, you have to trim them to make sure you go 10 minutes into overtime. Because god forbid management pay you and extra 50 cents. So most of the time if you're looking to pick up hours, once you get to around 34 or 36, it's hard to pick up another shift without going into overtime. That adds up to about $100 or more a month, plus tips, that you could be missing out on, because starbucks would rather be short staffed (which, by the way, when you're working with 190 to 200 degree coffee, does make the job dangerous) than pay an extra few dollars.

That's why Erik and I are anti-corporation. They have not ability to look at the small picture. All that matters is the bottom line. My health doesn't matter to them. Starbucks decided to give health benefits because someone had a teeeny bit of vision, a rare thing at a corporation, and realized that by giving a few benefits, they could have employees that are more loyal and hard working. All I'm saying is that while that's good, it's not enough. I want the corporations to recognize that they need to support their workers more because it's the right thing to do, not just because it will actually help them increase the bottom line. Only by refusing to put a price tag on it will they begin to come close to matching our needs. And I want people everywhere to realize that corporations probably aren't going to do that unless we all stand together. The forty million uninsured americans need to stand up. The millions and millions working two jobs to make it, and just barely need to tell the corporations to stand up for us, or we'll take you down.

And yes, by the way, those needs I mentioned are needs. Health care is a need and a right. Not a priveledge. It shouldn't even be connected to employment. The myth of the lazy unemployed person is absolute misanthropist tripe. I challenge absolutely anybody to go out and find me one single unemployed person who will not take almost any job you offer them for almost any pay. They WANT to work. And everyone NEEDS health care.

The system is completely and utterly messed up.

[sneaky]

Hi Anon-unionist - Last year in central California there was a major shortage in the migrant farm workers due to the crack down on illegal immigration in the state. It was going to make a huge problem getting the produce for the entire western US to market. The local farmers had the same thought as you - unemployed people want to work and will do almost anything for almost any amount. They contacted the state unemployment office and posted the positons. NOT ONE PERSON accepted any of the positions. The unemployment checks they got were still enough to keep them going rather than actually get a job.

So there is your one single unemployed person.

And yes, corporations are more concerned about the bottom line. It is a sad reality because if they don't, it doesn't matter if you are unionized or not, the company wil go under.

It is a hard economic fact that in this competitive marketplace, the unions are dying because the marketplace can't afford them. With unions wages go up (partly because you have to pay union dues and the workers need to get paid more to afford it), healthcare coverage goes up, facilities costs go up (due to improving working conditions as mandated by the union) and all these costs are covered by the corporation.

That means cuts take place somewhere else or prices go up. If prices go up, the consumer stops coming and the business dies.

Or product quality is lowered and it has the same result.

If behind the scenes cuts are made it affects the support the front-line workers get and they complain to the union who then supports them so they are reinstated and the busines dies.

They could dramtically reduce the compensation of the executives, but that compensation is what attracts the top talent. Without it they get crappy leadership and the business dies.

It has been happening all over America for decades. Look at the auto industry.

I am not anti-union, just a realist that watches the marketplace and sees what really is happening out there. I want better wages, better heathcare and a great working environment. But someone has to pay for it and the consumer is CLEARLY telling us they won't.

So who ya gonna call. . .?

[Mickey Blue Eyes]

With Sbux closing hundreds of stores, I'd think that employees would be doing everything they can to show up on time every time.

When it comes time to close a store, I'd think that those that show up every time with no unexcused absences would have priority over those who show up late.

It sounds like this kid wants to unionize so that he can get all the benefits of a f/t employee without having to, you know, show up for work on time and work 40+ hours a week like the rest of us.

[Anon unionist]

Erik Forman takes public transportation. I live near him. It takes an hour to get to his store from here, IF the buses are on time. It can be a crap shoot. He does everything he can to be on time.

Have I mentioned, HE WASN'T FIRED FOR BEING LATE. Wow people. And everyone has been late. Facts, folks. Facts.

As far as unions hurting corporations. Well now, lets take a look. A living wage. It's a simple concept. Everyone should make a living wage. Everyone should have health care. It's a human need. You shouldn't have to work multiple jobs to afford it. It shouldn't even be connected to employment. Safe working conditions. These are basic needs of workers. Very very basic.

If these multi-millionaire executives can't come up with a way to give workers these needs, there are two possibilities:

1) The system is fubar. ALL corporations need to start thinking about human needs, or be taken down. OR
2) The ones that can't find ways to fulfill these basic needs have broken business plans, and their multimillionaire CEOs are bad at the capitalism game.

I'd love to think it's number two and make fun of Howard, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, and the rest for being bad at the capitalism game, which in mainstream american culture basically means you're a bad american. But that's not the case. It's not their fault. It's the system. You're right, if corporations are forced to give workers basic needs, and their competition isn't, they face a difficult road. That's why we don't just need unions putting pressure on corporations. They need to put pressure on government to raise minimum wage, provide health care, regulate safer working conditions, etc. to create a level playing field for all corporations wherein the workers' needs are met, and all corporations have to play by the same rules.

As for those dirty lazy willfully unemployed californians. They don't exist in a vacuum. Could they have families? Could they be in too poor condition to work because they got sick, lost their insurance because they were sick, lost their job, couldn't get hired because of their medical issues? Could the unemployed have turned down the job because they were standing up for their MARKET RIGHT to demand fair pay? If you're going to play by capitalist rules, you can't leave that important detail out. They were looking for replacements for undocumented workers, many of whom were underpaid, because they effectively had no legal rights, because excercising them could mean being deported. Why would an american citizen want to take a job that previously was given to people who can't fight for their legal rights? What would the working conditions be like?