"Union sparring at Starbucks cafes? It wasn't supposed to be that way."

Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Andrea James examines the 88-page ruling from a 2007 trial that illustrates the ongoing tension between Starbucks Corp. and the Starbucks Workers Union. That trial, she writes, "produced a decision that reads at times like a reality-TV script, revealing Starbucks baristas and managers yelling at each other, mishandling blenders and cursing." || Read "Starbucks spars over union"

Comments

[truth]

To be fair to sbux, how many reporters from a local paper actually sit down and read court documents from ANY trial?

The journos were saying the same sorts of things about the Schultz/Sonics/City court case last year. It's only surprising because it's new to them.

ALL court documents read like this. That's why the threat of a lawsuit carries some gravity. It's called 'airing dirty laundry'.

Gawd. I can't believe I actually took sbux side for once.

[spence]

Starbucks isn't the Starbucks of yesterday. When they tell me to go inside a cave with gasses, I'll join the union.
If they ask me too work too hard, I'll deal with it. When they cut my hours, I'll deal with it. If they remove my benefits, I'll be forced to quit.

[LaMarzocco]

That's awesome, I wish there was a union when I worked there in the early 2000s.

[Big Green Monkey]

I'm against any unionization of my store. I do not want to be in a union. I do not want to let my hard work, abilities, and skills protect someone else's job. If other individual stores want to unionize, and all of the employees involved agree to it, that's fine by me, just don't make me do anything I don't agree to.

[the dmr]

To Spence,

Funny you should mention gases. I was a shift at a 24 hr DT store, I was working the overnight shift and my manager told me to set off bug-bombs in the back and keep the store open. I disagreed, this went back and forth for about an hour. In the end I was forced to set off bug bombs in the back of the store and keep the store open, thus I got to make drinks while inhaling nerve agents.
My SM and ASM also thought it was a waste of time for me to remove the whole beans from the back. ASM also did not think it was neccesary to rewash all the dishes either.

While I am not a big fan of unions, I can see how they could be required or usefull.

For the next two weeks at my store if I wanted a drink, I made it myself. I would wash a for-here cup, clean the steam rods, only use expresso beans that arrived after that night. My co-workers kept asking why, I would smile and tell them to ask the ASM.

~~the dmr~~

[SbuxBoy]

Unions only care about themselves. They are in business to make money off the workers.

[Cut out the Heart]

As I posted in another thread, if legislation proposed by President Obama passes, Starbucks will likely have number of union locations before too long. Unions have served their purpose in the past but in todays world, any company that has a union probably deserves one. The issue at hand is that under current rules, the union and the company have equal time to present their cases to the employees prior to employees ability to certify the union. The new rules would allow the union to be in place with just cards signed by employees and that is it. Starbucks legal better be training all their partner resource people on this issue and fast (wait, many of those people were let go a couple of weeks ago) so that they can be prepared if and when this legislation passes. The Service Workers union predicts that they will be able to unionize over 1 million employees with the new law. Under current laws, they are able to unionize about 100,000 people in a year. Where do you think they want to start? That's right, with a very large company such as Starbucks.

[Udontwant2no]

CutOutTheHeart: so glad that you are so happy I lost my job last week. You are clearly an ASMuncher

I've worked hard in a union shop for many years handing over more of my paycheck to the union than to the government. For benefits that are worse than I was getting at my 30 hours at Starbucks. Unions are out to take money from hard working folks, not allow individual progression, and fund "elections".

Yes unions were a good thing in the 1920's when "work" was really slavery -- see also China -- and it was common for persons in hard jobs to die at work. I don't think that is Starbucks today.

[CounterBean]

If Starbucks manages to avoid driving itself ino bankruptcy with value combos, instant coffee and the general McDonaldsization of a one valuable brand, the a union will kill Starbucks off for good.

If the card check law that takes away a secret ballot from citizens and allows unions to automatically scoop out from employee paychecks, kiss Starbucks goodbye.

Ridiculous work rules and the company being unable to properly staff a shop and enerate a profit will close thousands more shops within 12 months of a union getting in.

[Aaron]

sbuxboy, that is the way most unions work, but the IWW is considerably different. There is one paid staff member, who has no executive power. He or she (currently a he) mostly does paperwork. There are no paid organizers. There's not ginormous bureaucracy. There is no dues check-off (where money is taken directly out of paychecks). Thus, if the union wants your dues, it is forced to actually collect them in person, meaning every member has regular contact with a union delegate. In many unions, most contact with members is made during the initial card check and election drives. After that, they already have your money through dues check-off, so they don't bother to contact members much.

And yes, as you can probably tell, I am a member of the IWW and a Starbucks partner.

[Cut out the Heart]

Udontwant2no,

Not sure what part of my post left you with the impression that I was happy that you lost your job but that is not the purpose of my post. I can assure you that the intention of my post is that there is a ton of risk that Starbucks faces if this legislation passes. As much as Aaron would like to think that a Union is going to be good for partners, I beg to differ. The amount of money that partners will have to pay to the Union is not going to return to them in any benefits. The cost to the business will increase by at minimum 30% which will only lead to more layoffs. That is the point I was trying to make and not about more layoffs.

your humble ASmuncher,

Cut out the Heart

[Former Company Gal]

FYI: if a store joined the same union that organized about 15 store in Vancouver in the '90's, generally speaking a partner getting close to full-time hours would pay something like $8.00 every pay-period in Union dues. Just wanted to set the record straight on that. Plus in some countries, union dues are tax deductible...

[NYCSHIFT]

A couple points:

One, I feel the unions only work if the workers hold a monopoly on their labor. That is, if we all walked out of the store today, Starbucks would be in a real bind tomorrow. However, we all know that isn't true. Even if all the baristas in my region walked out of their stores, tomorrow morning you know those stores would open and things would proceed as usual. We mean nothing to Starbucks, especially in this economy, because for every one of us, there are at least five waiting to take our place.

Two, did anyone read in the article where it said the mission statement of the IWW was, and I'm paraphrasing, to end capitalism by overthrowing the corporate class, and that this will only happen once the workers of the world unite. I have to ask: I thought the point of a union was to open a dialogue between management and labor, however if this is the IWW's "starting position" in this conversation then why should Starbucks even give them the time of day? Because they are a threat. It's in their mission statement. They want to organize labor and overthrow management in an effort to end capitalism. And they wonder why it's such a struggle for them...

That being said. This is America. And you can speak what you want. Even if it continues to fall on deaf ears.

[me]

I am not a fan of unions and really think you get less out of them. Perks companies offer (like your coffee mark out) and nice to dos, and would be gone to cover the extra legal expenses.

Starbucks is a retailer at the end of the day, and in all retail establishments, hours are based on sales. Its just teh fact of the matter. Few retailers hire full time, or very few if they do, and those full timers usually ahve a more specialized role.

Pay is always a bone of contention. If theres one thing Starbucks does not do that they should, its be more competative in pay considering the amount of work they expexct out of the average partner. I don't think baritstas or shift supervisors are compensated well at all compared to other similiar jobs. In cutting positions in the stores, they should have budgeted in wage increases. It would have been a win win. It would have show partners "we understand we're putting on the hurt right now, but we're taking care of you this way and appreciate you being here."

[Melissa]

Unionization is one thing, but the IWW is a collection of kooks. I read their manifest, it's like it came from another planet. My boyfriend is a union electrician, and it helps him, and doesn't screw employers. There are rules, but there are no extreme acts. Maybe if a legitimate union backed this movement, it would work, but that's the nature of Starbucks, the wage was never meant to be a living wage, that's why it's college kids, and a second part time job. The company is in financial decline, and the business is driven by customer traffic=hours for you. If you don't like the wishy washy nature of the hours, there's always grocery store, which is union mandatory.

[anon]

"the IWW is a collection of kooks"

"their manifest, it's like it came from another planet"

"the mission statement of the IWW was, and I'm paraphrasing, to end capitalism by overthrowing the corporate class, and that this will only happen once the workers of the world unite. I have to ask: I thought the point of a union was to open a dialogue between management and labor, however if this is the IWW's "starting position" in this conversation then why should Starbucks even give them the time of day?"

Sounds like you guys have come into contact with some of these people and the wool they are trying to pull over people's eyes. Thanks for calling a spade a spade!

[lili]

Here is an example of what the IWW likes to send out:

“The Starbucks Problem”
Posted by Erik - 13/02/09 at 02:02:25 am

Last month, anonymous sources posted a secret conference call hosted by Bank of America on the website Wikileaks.org. The leaked audio file provides the public with a rare window into the paranoid and anxiety-ridden conscience of the corporate elite. On the call, Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus, corporate executives, right-wing activists, and notorious anti-union lobbyist Rick Berman rail against the possibility of a revitalized labor movement, with Marcus referring to unionization of retail as the “demise of a civilization.”One participant coins the term the “Starbucks Problem,” referring to the possibility that workers will simply form their own unions, rather than waiting for the lethargic union establishment to initiate organizing drives.

The conference call was prompted by the potential passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). If it passes, EFCA will change US labor law to require employers to bargain with a union if 50%+1 of the workforce in any workplace sign union authorization cards. This would replace the current process, which creates delays of several weeks between the signing of authorization cards and an NLRB-supervised election, leaving the bosses plenty of time to fire or intimidate union supporters.

Many trade unionists pin their hopes for a revitalized labor movement on the passage of EFCA. They hope that card-check provisions, combined with stiffer penalties for union-busting will allow them to sign up millions of new members in the service industry. Of course, requiring employers to bargain does nothing to ensure the internal democracy or power of the new union. The Industrial Worker, newspaper of the Industrial Workers of the World, recently published a particularly lucid expression of this critique.

If Corporate America is anxious about the growth of the Change to Win or the AFL-CIO unions, it was clear from this conference call that “The Starbucks Problem” leaves them absolutely terrified. In a tone verging on hysteria, one executive on the call worried that proactive groups of workers will simply start their own unions, as we have done at Starbucks with the help of the Industrial Workers of the World.

Of course, the IWW has been organizing at Starbucks since long before EFCA was a glimmer in the AFL-CIO’s eye. We know that workers don’t need professional staff, expensive lawyers, or government recognition to organize an independent voice on the job. What the corporate elites call “The Starbucks Problem”, we call “Solidarity Unionism.” And whether EFCA passes or not, we will continue building solidarity with our coworkers, making demands, and winning gains for workers at even the largest corporate chains.

With or without the Employee Free Choice Act, the “Starbucks Problem” is going to get a lot bigger than Starbucks.

[rbblum]

Given the SBUX reasonably fair wages, very good benefits and pleasant working conditions, I'm not sure what a 'union' point of view would really offer on a positive note. Been there, done that (with a bureaucratic entity).

However, perhaps what is only in need of tweaking is 'adult supervision' within the SBUX organizational model. A bit more oversight by a hands-on managerial style with fewer middle and upper level management (ie excessive duplication).

[verticalphil]

does anyone have a non paraphrased mission statement for IWW? does anyone know why there's a "weekend"? does anyone know why collective bargaining is in the constitution? I understand the need to question motive and all that jazz, but come on...?

[lili]

Here is the preamble to their constitution:

"Preamble to the IWW Constitution

Direct Action Gets the Goods

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."

If that isn't enough to scare you, just do an internet search, you'll find more than enough...

[???]

I have a question about the union if anyone can answer it...

I did some research on the sbux union and I was an ASM at sbux, but was recently laid off with the whole bunch, and I think a union is an awsome idea! But I noticed if you were upper management you could not be a part of the union. Why is that?

Thanks!

[lili]

Because the union can't function without an us vs. them...and management is ALWAYS the enemy to unions.

[Shifty Stuporvisor]

In principle, I'm in favor of labor unions. I just wish we had a real union coming in instead of this shady IWW outfit, and because of them, we'll probably never get a real union.

[Shifty Stuporvisor]

(Disclaimer: I am in favor of labor representation for retail employees in general, although I don't believe it will happen during my lifetime. One can also make the argument that better labor practices could be as easily accomplished and enforced in a modern setting by legislation as opposed to labor-management bargaining. Also, Starbucks is one of the last companies I would suggest to be truly in need of better labor practices, I think they are targeted merely for their visibility as an avenue to instant publicity. I just get really ticked off at the nonsensical ideological cesspool that is the IWW. "We hate capitalism--now pay us more!" Give me a break.)

[Blaze]

Lili seems to be affraid of unionising?? What position do you hold at the Bucks? Stop bashing us because your the reason why the IWW is winning law suits and the company is losing money...DO NOT UNIONBASH...

Remember if a store goes union then the manager will not bonus and we (Baristas and Shifts) will take control of our store and our labor and not be manipulated by ASM and SM's.

There is nothing wrong with unionising especially if management is being "Shady" at your store. If you unionise it will be easier to hold them responsible.

TRhe movement has started...carry on.

[Blaze]

We have began to come together as one, LETS do this and let us achieve our goals, the movement has started. Let's move forward positively, open-minded with dignity and respect. Embrace change and diversity, compromise if possible and move forward. We are the only ones who can bring the company back to the "good old days" and lets do it...Much Respect to all my Partners Union and Non-Union, Solidarity.

[Asher]

@Blaze -- instead of creating a rift between management and baristas, if you really want to sell the idea of a union you should explain the benefits for everyone. As a manager, I'm not opposed to higher pay. After all, I realize that our baristas and shifts are the front line, and deserve to be paid accordingly. As far as SM bonuses, don't forget at this point that our bonuses are based solely on sales targets, nothing more. So yes, I do still have targets for controlling my expenses, but controlling partner pay does not influence my bonus at this time, nor is it exactly fair to assume SMs or any level of management for that matter are as heartless as you're making us out to be. I for one would gladly sacrifice my potential bonus for the benefit of having quality partners in my store, which would lead to job security for me. See? I get it...

I don't have an opinion on a union either way, but by attempting to turn store partners against their SMs isn't exactly a good way to raise support. SMs don't control wages at the store level. You have to go much higher than us...you'd leverage a lot more support for your cause by having our support...

[Blaze]

Your support on the union is not positive, and is crystal clear in several law suits that are taking place. SM's due not welcome Unionising, and if you feel so strongley on us coming together as some sort of "investment" for you at your store,

Here's an Idea: Take your bonus that you make and split it up to all the Baristas in your store. Then we will come together and work with you on issues. But until the DM's still have you on their left sack, telling you what to do and who to do it to and when, etc... you are not looking out for us but your-self and your position. If you want our support then tell your Baristas and shifts at your store that they might have intrests in joining the Starbucks Union. Hold a Unionised meeting for us at your store, so we can come together and all sit down and discuss...Until them it's all BLah, BLah, Blah from ASM to SM to DM and up...

[Blaze]

Asher I'm not trying to insult you but this is a very deep cut that has been opened by Coorperate and it's time for us to stand up for ourselves. Our Managers can only do so much and then they must play both sides of the fence, always leaning towards the Corp. side and not the workers...

I will think about what you wrote in more depth and respond back to later.

Asher have a wonderful morning and I look forward on this discussion in a bit.

[FLA SM]

Asher: you seem to be operating under a few misconceptions.
First, we SMs have absolutely NO SAY WHATSOEVER regarding what the starting wage is for baristas and shift supervisors. We BARELY have any say regarding what their wage increases will be, and any judgements we make during reviews can be over-ruled by DMs and others above us.
Second, our bonus has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how much baristas and shift supervisors make. It's SOLELY based on SALES.
If a union wants to "sit down with me" they are wasting their time because I, as an SM, cannot effect any of the changes they wish to make. The only thing I can control is the schedule. I have little choice in how my schedule is made as well. I am only allowed a small percent of non-coverage time for administrative tasks and have no choice in the total number of hours allotted each week. It's all based on VTI (variance to ideal) throught the ALS system.
I have no opinion one way or another regarding a Starbucks Union, but you need to understand that SMs are not the "enemy." We don't make decisions like instituting Optimal Scheduling and wage rates. You (the union) need to deal with upper management far above our level if you want to see changes. Good luck with that.

[Blaze]

No we need to cut out the middle man, which is The ASM's, SM's and DM's...Since you have no control over changes...
" I, as an SM, cannot effect any of the changes they wish to make."

Like I said your not going to help us,we need to step up and take control ourselves, and the time has come to get rid of useless upper management including ASM, SM,DM... who do nothing for us...Hold them accountable, the SM's should be taking more of a leadership role and not blaming their bosses cause they are the *itch%Es and bottom line of Management Level----> Their basicaly mules for Corp.

[Tike]

Blaze...everything you have posted is offensive, in the extreme. Union issue aside, all you are doing is creating enemies for your "movement".

Being nasty and dismissive is NOT going to get you what you want. In fact, showing these posts to other baristas will make sure they want nothing to do with you or your "friends".

[Blaze]

Well then they will just let themselves get used by ASM's, SM's, and DM's. This is all happeneing all around the states and our third place is becoming a black hole that is run by people we have no need/use for. Stores can run themselves with shifts and Baristas and Occasionally having the SM comde to do payroll.

Nothing I have posted is offensive, its the TRUTH, and the TRUTH always hurts. I'm the one stuck in this great big pile of smelly dog dodo you DM's, SM's, ASM;s have caused. Here is the result and it's time to take responsibility of your lack of guidance, experience and leadership...We can handle our own stores and hours without you people interfering.

BARISTAS do not listen to these SM"S who are trying to clopud your judgement, they want the worst for us and the want to use you long enough for them to Bonus and keep giving it to us in the rear, NOW I'M PISSED

[FLA SM]

Oh.. my.. God.. Blaze, you are truly insane. Next time, don't forget your meds.

[Asher]

@FLA SM: I'm assuming in your above post you meant to reference Blaze and not myself, because you basically reiterated everything I said in my above post, yes?

[Blaze]

MULES

[FLA SM]

Asher: you're right. My bad.

Blaze: HEE HAW!

[Tike]

Again, Blaze....you just prove the point that another poster made with this statement "the IWW is a collection of kooks"!

You have yet to post the TRUTH, as you put it. Keep trying,though!

[Blaze]

TIKE Your just a #itch

[Tike]

Again...you prove my point.

[NYCSHIFT]

Allow me to interject:

Perhaps there is no union. And by that I do not mean to insult or take any one side in the matter at hand, but simply I mean only this...that to have a union, that is, to really be able to affect change within Starbucks, you have to first have power, and second be in dialogue.

In my understanding this is exactly what a union is. It is an organization that is both powerful and in constant dialogue with management in order to negotiate settlements in the best interest of labor.

Therefore: because the IWW has no power...Sure, you may point to the countless protests that have won a few baristas back their jobs, or the law suits which have netted short term gains...but where has it gotten them overall? A barista, simply, is not a skilled labor position, therefore anyone can do it, and because anyone can do it, that means a union is powerless.

Also: because the IWW does not negotiate...they protest. They...distract. I've seen them and friends of mine who've been with me have said to me, "that looks really bad for Starbucks." Granted that's the IWW's point (I assume...), however, these protests...they are the complete opposite of negotiations. Negotiations are focused meetings where compromises are reached. The operative word being focused.

All this having been said my conclusion is because the IWW is neither powerful nor engages in dialogue, it cannot be considered a union.

SIDE NOTE: I do believe in the right to organize but believe in always trying to negotiate with management first. If and only when management stops listening should the union engage in alternative means of engagement, such as a strike...however I should repeat my previous point that a barista is not a skilled labor position, and anyone can do it...so I don't know hoe affective that would be...

[Paco Loco]

Hey shift why don't you stop stealing our tips and ask management to give your own salary. That should be the next step: separate shifts from Baristas. They are a big impact on the amount of tips taken from us can we seperate them please.

[Joseph]

Actually, Poco Loco....I think the best way to deal with the tip situation is to remove tip jars, altogether. They are not allowed at many licensed stores, and they have much less trouble because of it. Nobody has to be paid to do tips, tips do not get stolen(by other partners, or by random customers), and there would be no basis for lawsuits.

BTW...nobody is "taking" tips from you, right now. The SS deserve them, just as much as you do, you greedy little s.o.b!

[NYCSHIFT]

I don't understand how we are stealing them? We are working too. Right along side you guys. We are partners, right? As to the "stealing" question...I find if there is theft going on in the store, one thing you'll notice is an increase in the tip rate. This is because someone is stealing money, and instead of pocketing it and risking getting caught with it, they instead put it in the tip jar, knowing at least some of it will come back to them on Monday (or whenever tips in your store are done...)

On another note: I personally don't like being called a thief. I don't think that is respect and dignity, nor do I think your comments fit into our mission statement (the old, but still applicable one). It's okay to disagree with ideas and concepts, but not to accuse people on a whim.

Those are my thoughts

[Paco Loco]

Joseph you don't have tips in your store?? Who the hell will want to work at your store then...no tips, u loco papi.

[Paco Loco]

Oh you are in a licensed store, that' s fake starbucks papi, u guys make us look bad..

[Joseph]

I never said I worked at a licensed store...nor are they fake Starbucks, culo mio. Y, por favor....beso me culo.

[J]

can we all just chill out?

this is starbucks, it's not life or death. the idea of a starbucks union is just comical. if you don't like it get another job. It's hard, yeah, in today's economy but not impossible.

geez

[Solange]

If the supposed "union" is such a big deal...then why is this topic dead?

[Blaze]

It's not dead we are just waiting to get through some litigation and we've got our own site that respects our views so we choose to discuss elsewhere...