Starbucks settles with Minneapolis barista who was fired, then rehired

Erik Forman was fired July 10 after he received a "final written warning" for showing up half an hour late to work. The warning followed two earlier tardy notices. Starbucks then reversed its decision and hired Forman back in August, saying the initial firing was "ill-considered." (That was discussed here.) The company asked him to voluntarily withdraw his NLRB complaint, but he decided to move forward with it. || Starbucks settles NLRB complaint of fired barista

Comments

[Pat Nerr]

hmmm... very interesting

[Lee Blend]

I worry in this that it says workers have nothing to worry about if they try to make a union, Forman got his job back. Forman got lucky. I bet there are many former baristas who have been termed who do not get as lucky, and hope no one gets fired thinking it is safe to try to make unions at Starbucks. Starbucks is a major company and is very stuck in its ways. They state to provide the best healthcare and be such a great employer, but really, they are not.

I used to think the idea of unions at Starbucks was stupid, but now I see that really , they may be the best thing for Starbucks. Howard has let us down, he doesnt respect his partners anymore, and really we need to get together and make change and when you are going up against someone as large as Starbucks, a union can be your answer.

[green apron monkey]

Eric Forman?

dumbass

you'll be mad at me when you get it.

[S. Becker]

I met this Eric guy. Didn't much care for him. What he's trying to do is out of the realm of possibility and he's gone about it in a very backwards and damaging way.

I'm not a fan of Starbucks at the moment myself, but I don't think a union is the right way to fix the problems. This is a job, primarily (not exclusively), for college aged people who need flexibility. I don't think that a union is necessary.

[Aaron aka anon unionist]

S. Becker, how would you propose to fix the problems at Starbucks? I assume you work at Starbucks, so what exactly would you, on your own, do? Keep in mind that if you went into your manager's office, or called up any higher manager, and told them what you think Starbucks should do, they could, if they wanted, fire you. Going to management on your own and complaining is not a protected activity. All baristas are at-will employees. So Starbucks can fire you for any reason, at any time.

So you could go to your manager with a partner, just in case, and both of you could collectively let your concerns be known. That is the only way you can avoid being fired.

And the only difference between a union and two or more coworkers working together for a better workplace is that a union says its a union, and establishes a lasting framework for members to continually help eachother, while you and your coworker might go in to the manager's office, and be done with it. So what's going to happen then? Probably nothing.

And why don't students need a union. Also, what about those working at Starbucks who aren't students? Why should all those people be content making less than a living wage, or even less than a poverty wage?

Why is forming a union out of the realm of possibility? Would you join if you thought others might? That's the biggest hold up. A lot of people readily admit that a union would help Starbucks workers. They just don't want to join if nobody else is in. If all those people just joined, the union would already be huge.

[spence]

Union!!! It's not like Starbucks is telling us to walk through miles of caves with explosive gasses. Nor are they subjecting us to work 60 hour weeks.
And to those that think it's a good idea. UNION FEES AREN'T CHEAP.

[Zipy]

Yeah, forget that. Last time my family had to deal with a union they were threatening to sue my family unless we joined the union. (small family owned construction company) I don't need nor want a union trying to charge me fee's for what they already give me at sbux.

[asmsocal]

so he gets his job back (after repeatedly being late) then continues to claim his rights were violated? maybe he shouldn't have violated starbucks attendance policy so many times? maybe he used the "union" angle to get out of taking responsibility for being late to work repeatedly? i don't know him...but every article i have read about this confirms that he was separated for BEING LATE numerous times. cry me a river...

i am tired of people sticking up for this guy on this website. he was late. he got what was coming to him. ie: he lost his job...just like thousands of people do all the time for not showing up to work on time. but since he sounds the union alarm he's welcomed back (by a company he thinks is evil no less).

starbucks should have stuck by their policies and stuck by the manager that fired him. good riddance. go start a labor union at company that truly exploits their workers...oh wait, erik seems to think starbucks does?!? what a clueless ingrate...

[Lilith]

If I may read between the lines, it sounds like there wasn't that strong of documentation in corrective actions over the tardiness issue. It seems silly that he was rehired at all.

All the more reason to document, document, document!

[Yay Eric]

If Starbucks fired everyone who was ever late, there would be a workforce of a few dozen people. If they want to get rid of you, they write you up for being late by one minute or for violating the dress code by wearing the wrong color socks.

It sounds to me that Starbucks tried a trade-off that backfired on them: We hire you back and you drop your NLRB complaint. Erik didn't go for it.

As Erik said, the law is on his side.

[S. Becker]

We work at a coffee shop. The work that we do does not entail us to make a lot of money. Our stores and products may be more culturally accepted and a much better environment but we really aren't that far removed from fast food.

Baristas will never make the amount that Erik and his union are asking for (beginning pay at $12-13 according to the flyer he gave me. As a shift supervisor I would love to make that much, but is the work that I do, and all shifts do, warranting a $13 starting wage? I don't believe so.

Also, I've been in unions, and as some of the above comments have stated they are expensive. I don't think that this is a job for people who think they can make a career out of it on the base level. Work your way up if you so choose, but you're never going to make a "living wage" steaming milk.

If you have an issue, then do what you can, or find a new job. I'm not happy with Starbucks right now, not because they're doing anything wrong, I've just been working there for 4 years and I'm bored with the tediousness of the work. So I'm applying at other companies. I'm not going to go to my manager, or district manager and complain about how I feel the job isn't challenging or rewarding. If I'm unsatisfied I'll take my skills elsewhere.

As I see it, Erik is bored. He wants to create ripples and affect the image and workers of a company that actually is good to its employees. I don't support the union, this isn't the kind of job that needs one.

[Melody]

I have torn feelings about unions. My other half has been a union guy for more than a decade. Until you've been through having to stomach a strike, and you (or your boyfriend/partner/whatever) is at home, restless, wants to be working ... and worried about keeping a roof over his head ... that strike experience IS an experience.

And you may be forced to strike, even if you want to work. If your union says strike, but you don't want to, you're still out of work, or you cross a strike line which is also a problem ...

In the end, I have to ask myself if it is worth it? My boyfriend is in a dangerous construction-related profession and the union does more than just make sure he has good wages. In his industry, the union is the big player in sound training and maintaining a safe construction site. For him, a union, when you look at the whole picture, is worth it.

Is a union worth it for baristas? I'd lean towards saying 'no'. Most baristas won't spend 15 to 30 years in a dangerous profession, and with one strike, most baristas will suffer true severe financial hardship. On top of that, it's true that Starbucks isn't the kind of profession where baristas are going to make $13 an hour with a severe toll to the financial profile of Starbucks.

Like I said, I'm torn. I see the advantages, but I've been through the strike experience in my house, and I hate it. It gets even worse because some unions 'align' with other unions. I've seen situations where craneoperators don't go to work because pipefitters are striking, or iron workers don't go to work because carpenters are striking ...

Where do you stop this? What if the SSC was unionized, AND baristas? Can you imagine baristas NOT going to work because they decided to stand 'in solidarity' with their striking SSC counterparts?

I've rambled too much.

[drive]

Melody, I am not sure the point is whether or not a union is "worth it" for Starbucks and its employees. I incline toward thinking it is not. The point is whether they have a legal right to attempt to organize a union. And they do.

[shortsleep]

I'm not going to speak on the topic of unions (for or against them), but i will say that i personally do not want to work for a union.

[asmsocal]

i hope than no starbucks partner ever has to open their paycheck and see a line that says "union dues" with a monetary number behind it. the last thing i would ever want to do is give a labor union any money from my pocket so they could turn around and put into a political lobbying slush-fund.

lobby for unions...let them take your money...and spend it on political dinners and lobbyists in d.c....who sure as hell are making more than a barista, shift, asm or manager.

[snagger]

No need for a union Hmmm! My partner was terminated at the SSC--one hour to leave no performance reviews for the last 2 years,no reference letters--loved the job and got a kick in the a--.What do you tell an employer when you're looking for a new job? Trust me I didn't steal anything! SBUX is not the wonderful employer everyone thinks. It's now run by a bunch of greedy good old BOYS.Howard and Chet in the lead.A union; a lawsuit; who knows! Plenty of hard working partners need some protection!

[Former Partner]

I think people need to realize you are working RETAIL. I worked it for several years and wasn't paid all that great. Let's be honest here, you do not exactly need an MBA in Finance to operate an automatic espresso machine. The truth is I was being paid $8/hr because my position was easily replaceable. Sadly, that is what working retail entails. The reality is that you will receive less benefits and pay as you are personally less valuable to the company financially.

And to be clear, I am not belittling the work as a barista. My time as a Starbucks partner was both mentally and physically challenging, and it is by no means an easy job. But you can't honestly say that you feel unfairly compensated by Starbucks given the scope and responsibilities of your position. When I was a barista, I would have loved a $12, $15/hr wage. I'm sure Starbucks could have afforded that, but for how long. In the end, they cut your job/hours so they can afford all the "rights" you just fought for.

[BadKitty.]

Honestly, I believe it is generally accepted that you are allowed three tardies...and there have been many cases, at which someone was just being terribly picky during bad weather at which I was asked why I was a minute late. When I stay over a minute, I don't question why...it just seems awfully fishy that he was promoting a union, and then oh! You're fired.

Someone needs to stick up for Baristas. In my area, I wish that we had an open forum policy, but unfortunately, that's not how it works. They can preach fairness and caring and family all day long...but what it comes down to is that sometimes...the man has the upperhand...and there isn't a damn thing the worker can do about it.

[tcsbuxunion]

As has been said before, Erik wasn't fired for being late. In fact, the two writeups he received for being late were over a year old. After a year of punctuality, he was given a "final" after one tardy. This is itself against Starbucks policy.

Regarding unionization, the Starbucks Workers Union doesn't take dues out of workers' checks. It DOES offer workers a way to advocate change at Starbucks that doesn't jeopardize their jobs.

If you think baristas, and all retail workers in this country, should make a living wage, then you should be with the union, regardless of what you think of this particular union member who was fired for speaking out.

[espressoblend]

tcsbuxunion:

There's only one thing wrong with what you said: SBUX doesn't need to pay a living wage, union or not. It's very simple: if you don't think you're getting enough pay, support, whatever from SBUX, you can always quit and find a new job.

SBUX seems to be a transition position, anyway. It's for college students who want to work through college and then go onto a real job...

A union would be a stupid move, costing both SBUX and the worker cash... who wants that? I know that folks requiring SBUX make a profit (investors, etc) don't want to see more cash being spent on this crap -- customers don't want that either...

Besides, SBUX baristas ALREADY have a self-appointed, unearned sense of entitlement. A union backing would only exacerbate that, and frankly, I can't imagine customers would want to deal with *that*...

It's pretty easy: either do your jobs well, give great service the customer deserves and stop whining, or get a new job.

[Torontodude]

What's up with the curious use of the word "entitlement" on this site?

I don't know what it means. It strikes me as touchy-feely California psycho babble.

Even more puzzling are the related references: "self-entitiled", "self-appointed entitlement" etc...

Huh? Words and meaning appear to have parted company. Can I get a translation into English, please?

[Anonymous]

To EspressoBlend,

And again, you prove your own ignorance. SBUX is not a job just for college students. I know of people over 30 who work there.

I think you're been living inside your own bubble all your life.

And to make things more timely and relevant, if you think SBUX baristas are self-entitled, do you think Wall Street deserves the 'bailout'? Are you for Main Street or Wall Street?

[tcsbuxunion]

To espressoblend:

There was a time when people made the same argument you just did about the MINIMUM wage. People made the same argument about the WEEKEND. These benefits that you enjoy were won through the hard struggle of working people. We all inherit the legacy of those struggles. The Starbucks Workers Union is taking the struggle forward.

Change will only be brought about in this country through struggle, principally the struggle of those of us who toil in the corporate chains. As we wage this struggle, Starbucks is required to obey federal labor law. This is now the third settlement over union-busting charges they have entered into. There is clearly an anti-union agenda that is being handed down from high levels in this company.

Good thing there are still some baristas courageous enough to exercise their legal right to organize, even with the precedent of illegal– i'm sorry, i mean "ill-considered"– firings of union organizers.

[spence]

There are some writers here that need to change the world and make it a better place. Rather than tackling the need for Starbucks to have a union, I would rather see all that energy going toward something that would really benefit the public instead of themselves. Habitat for Humanity, give love to an aids baby, work at a shelter, whatever is necessary. But this barista is opposed to a union.

[Kat]

If this guy was repeatedly late, Starbucks had every right to fire him regardless of his activities when it comes to unions. Some of you may say it's nothing that he was late, that people often are. But I used to work retail, day shift, and we had a few folks that had the attitude that it was ok to be late. Guess who always ended having to stay past their quitting time until the late person showed up? Me. And after a very long day of work, I did not appreciate it, especially when I had things I really needed to be doing. People that are repeatedly late are insensitive to their fellow workers as far as I'm concerned. He deserved to be fired and I wouldn't have hired him back.

[K-Dog]

The problem with Forman's firing was not that he was let go for being late; it was that disciplinary actions were found to be applied inconsistently in this instance. If a company's policy is to terminate an employee the first time he is five minutes late, that is absolutely enforceable provided that is the penalty every time someone is five minutes late. Instead, it was found in Minneapolis that there were frequent instances of partners who were late but given no corrective action. (In fact, the district manager who fired Forman was compelled to scour months of partners' time punches and match them against schedules to look for such instances. There were. And having to spend the time doing this seems like punishment enough for the DM!) Thus, since it appeared the corrective action taken was inconsistent in its application, Starbucks decided it would be less costly to rehire Forman than to fight this case further.

By the way, this case highlights one of the many reasons middle management at Starbucks has grown increasingly bureaucratic and why the company will never again be as purely passionate about the coffee and experience as it once was. As a large company, Starbucks is an easy target, and those at the district and regional level have naturally become more focused on cover-your-ass behavior than on the pursuit of excellence. In fact, Starbucks ought to remove a "passion for everything we do" and "entrepreneurial spirit and drive" from its core values as these are no longer viable traits at the company. Passion and entrepreneurship don't mesh well with the bureaucratic impulse.

[sneaky]

Speaking only from my personal experience, Sbux DM's are absoultely trained on how to legally eliminate any union organizing activity that starts to occur in their stores. I would NEVER want to be the DM that had union activity begin in one of my stores. Yikes. The punushment would be really severe.

It is a HUGE issue with the company. The reason is if Starbucks become a union environment, it gives more power to the unions to organize in the McDonald's, Jack-In-The Box's and Burger Kings of the world as well. Starbucks really doesn't want to be the entry point for unions into the fast food world.

I have managed people/businesses in both the Retail Clerks Union (all the Dept. stores in downtown San Francisco are unionized) and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. There wasn't a premium salary in place, the benefits were no better than what sbux already has. The big benefit is preventing unjust discipline, harassment, inconsistencies in policy administration, etc. When a company gets as big as sbux, it is inevitable that pockets of overzealous SM's, DM's, RD's, Partner Resources or all combined will take matters into their own hands rather than follow the letter of the policy/procedure (see other conversations about gay harassment on this site). This is where the employee will benefit having a union rep to help resolve and hold the offending parties accountible.

I am NOT a union supporter at all. But if the senior leadership at sbux doesn't do a better job of managing their middle managers and holding them accountible to follow ALL policies, procedures and labor laws it could very well be inevitable.

[on the line]

What would Jimmy Hoffa do?
I am curious to know how any one except Eric, his SM & DM and the people directly involved in his case know how old his write ups were and what they were "really" issued for. Just as this could truly be a case his being fired for union talk, it is equally as likely that he got fired and threw out the false charge as a way of retaliation.
Either way, if enough people want unions in Sbux, they will get them. If enough people don't, they won't. Tcsbuxunion don't be fooled. Both ways are filled with rediculous rules and people who will do right and wrong. This is not a good vs. evil scenario.

[Mike]

Espressoblend,

What is it that you do exactly? You seem to have everyone all figured out. You remind me of my landlord -- the guy spends all his time crapping on everyone else, telling them what they're doing wrong, and what they should be doing. He has the solution for all of life's problems. Funny thing about my landlord is he lives in a run-down little shack, drives a beat-up backfiring pick-up to his crappy little job every morning, and has two sons who spend more time in jail than out.
I can't imagine you are a manager of any kind given your complete lack of ability to connect on a human level. What is it that you do exactly that gives you your sense of entitlement?
What amazes me even more is the webmaster continues to let you post your self-centered and egotistical comments when you obviously make judgments of people based on industry and pay. Then again, like my landlord, despite the fact no one takes you seriously, it is always kind of funny to see what's going to come out of your mouth next...

I received an invitation to the GOLD card today! I live in San Francisco... I will get almost 10% off everything in the store....

[Melody]

To anon: I got the same thing today. Are you an active MSI participant? Just curious. I've already accepted the Gold Card invite! :-)

[Jon]

What's MSI? Not sure...but I do go to Starbucks a lot and buy drinks often...

I think the gold card is launched to everyone who are registered starbucks users and have regularly visits starbucks.

I cannot wait to get my gold card!

[Aaron aka anon unionist]

1. The Starbucks Workers Union, sponsored by the IWW is FREE. Free. You don't have to pay a dime. Nothing. All you do is stand by your workers. That is what a union is, at it's heart. Most of the unions people are familiar with have high dues because all they do is hire lawyers to negotiate your contract for you. The IWW operates a totally different way. The power comes from the workers, not from the union beaurocrats. That's why the SWU is free, and the IWW has fees ranging from $6 a month (what most baristas would probably pay) to $18 a month (for those making over $2000 a month. Also, as I mentioned before, you can start your own union. Go get a coworker who thinks like you, and do something, and there you have a union. That is basically what the IWW and SWU do.

2. Erik was fired for discussing the final warning with a peer. The two previous warnings mentioned were over a year old. Discussing a warning with peers is a protected concerted activity, not to mention that suddenly deciding to crack down on one worker after he starts organizing is highly questionable.

3. On the line, because I know him personally.

4. Spence, did you have in mind something like fighting for better pay for coffee farmers on other continents making $1 a day?

http://www.starbucksunion.org/bean2cup

5. Why should anyone not deserve a living wage? If a company can't afford to pay all it's workers to make enough to live barely above poverty, then either the system is messed up, or that company needs a new business plan. If there's nothing wrong with the system, and they can't afford it, they are clearly doing something wrong, and should not be in business.

[Melody]

MSI stands for mystarbucksidea.com - it looked like the log in for the gold card sign up with tied to my MSI user nick name, but maybe I'm confused ...

Btw, I'm also confused whether I'll need to carry one or two Starbucks cards now. Do I transfer my balance to the gold card? I'm sure the answer will be in whatever is mailed to me but I'm too excited to wait on the mail.

[nycsm]

Melody:
You can use the Gold Card for both, just not at the same time. You will need to figure out which you would want to use in a given situation. Your 10% off, or the rewards from your registered starbucks card (the benefits cannot be combined.) A great way to use the two together would be if you purchased a Venti Pike Place Roast with you 10% off and then use the the Starbucks rewards to get a free refill.
Hope this helps

[WaSbuxMan]

I don't think EspressoBlend will ever tell anyone what he does because he wants to appear superior to everyone and if he shares his profession we might think of him differently. Just my two cents

[spence]

I think EspressoBlend is an semi-educated underachiever. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't be getting his/her jollies by trying to impress us.

[maggiemunkee]

maybe espressoblend is webmaster jim's evil twin? :D

[spence]

Even if EspressoBlend comes forward and tells us what he/she does, are we going to believe it?

[Pat Nerr]

Unions for Starbucks baristas are a horrible idea. Look at what happened in Vancouver BC and unions in Canada are much stronger and have way more power over companies that in the U.S.

13 stores decided that maybe a Union wasn't such a good idea. Just ask any of the partners who had to go through it. It might be a good idea in the Roasting Plants however.

[spence]

I think only a tiny number of people want a union. It would increase the cost of coffees/Mochas etc. Just how much are people willing to pay? It would be a financial crisis for Starbucks and possibly cripple it. Your union fees aren't going to matter when the stores close.

[Cut out the Heart]

Unions are not the solution however, if Starbucks leadership continues down the path they are currently on they will get what they deserve. When the focus shifted from the partner, the customer, and the experience to the morons on Wall Street who can't even manage their own affairs, they opened the door to union activity. When that door is opened, there may be no turning back. Howard would talk so vehemently against unions because he felt he was providing a great work experience. Well up to July, he was right. Now all I see on this website from actual partners are discussions about unfair wage practices, horrific DM's and RM's, inconsistent policies, and other issues that unions will latch onto as part of their campaigns. Note to Howard, you better get Chet to address these things or the amount of money you are going to be spending on making your case against unions is going to far outweigh the money you saved by letting people go in July. Oh, and those people were the type that made unions in your workplace unnecessary as they took good care of their partners. Hmmmm.

[annoyedSM]

you get benefits for being part-time

you get stock options

you can take vacation time

you can have a flexible schedule

you DON'T slave away in a factory

you work in a climate controlled enviroment

you get personal days

etc...etc...

maybe some DM's and SM's are morons...that goes with every job, anywhere...and while it is unfortunate it is NOT the majority of management working for starbucks. you all sound like a bunch of spoiled children...droning on about how hard your job is. OUR JOBS ARE NOT HARD. sorry to burst your pro-union/woes me/i work for a slave driver company bubble...

[annoyedbarista]

they may not be as hard as say, mining coal, but the wages starbucks pays baristas and shifts are not enough to get by on.

if workers want to organize a union, they have every right to. starbucks needs to realize that it must respect this right or pay the consequences in legal fees and a tarnished reputation.

[maxpunx]

i don't care enough about my sbux job (right now) to join a union, but i definitely think its weird that sbuxers are on here saying that people don't deserve a living wage for 38 hours of work a week.
a lot of people that work at sbux are trying to support themselves, they work 39 hours a week and you know what, they can't just run out and get a better paying job.
-don't you want someone invested in the job to make your latte everyday or some kid you have to fight with every day to convince them your drink does exist, how to charge you for it and to not let the shots go bad?
if you don't care if you want your 5 dollar latte to be a toss-up everyday then whatever, but don't deny that people with skill and passion for their job deserve to be able to make a living

[Lee Blend]

http://www.komonews.com/news/business/30532959.html

Another barista(Dorsey) files complaint against SBUX

[CarolT25]

Unionization needs to be examined carefully by partners. You would most likely experience more negative than positive. Howard has always included store level partners in all benefits and perks -- it is representative of a 'partner' philosophy. A union environment automatically creates an "us vs. them" (employee vs. management) way of thinking and will be nothing but adversarial. IF the store staffs are successful in unionizing, you could see your benefit packages change within a year- it is HIGHLY unusual to see retail health benefits as rich as what sbux provides to hourly and pt employees. Ask your union promoters how they will manage benefits for their associates? And, ask your union promoters SPECIFICALLY what they will be doing for you besides taking a chunk of dues out of your check each month. Are they going to protect you from write ups when you show up late? Sorry - to me that would not be worth the trade of good benefits to protect those who can't get themselves to work on time.

[asmCal]

the union can protect you from being written up...they'll protect horrible partners who get separated by suing starbucks. unions protect the lazy, non-working employees the same as their hard working ones. good luck ever correcting any negative behavior because if you do you'll be at the mercy of the union. what about partners that refuse to be a part of the union? i WILL NEVER be a part of any labor union. if all you can do is work a minimum wage job...then work two...no company is required to pay you enough so you can live fat and happy. especially a company that offers you ingrates health insurance, sick days, personal days, and stock options. pathetic ingrates...seriously.

being late = getting fired - take it like a man and move on Eric. It's called holding yourself accountable

[Tired manager]

wow is all i have to say